Origin of Creationism

I believe I have asked you this question already, but I missed the reply...

Could you please explain why humans share so much genetic material with a banana, if not for the theory of evolution?

See, my education would lead me to believe the silly notion that morphological similarity correlated, and a lot of the times even causally related
with, genetic similarity. See, using this, we can create a chain of ancestry using DNA. For the hypothetical chain (these numbers are entirely
fictitious, but represent reality...) Say a human shares 98% of his DNA with a chimpanzee. Great, we see similar genes and overall similar
morphological features. Now, say humans and some species of monkey share about 90% of their genes. Still great, a few more morphological
differences, a little less shared DNA. Now do this through the entire animal kingdom... until you get to the split between animals and plants. So,
before the modern banana, before the modern human, plants and animals shared one ancestor, whose offspring thus diverged into the two kingdoms of
Animalia and Plantae. Really, humans sharing DNA with plants is not only expected, but required to lend evidence to support the theory of common
ancestry of life on Earth.

So, I ask again, how do you explain the morphological similarities being correlated with overall genetic similarity between two species?

You got it, I read 'em. And I wasn't the one who brought up
" A Common ancestor" to begin with, just for the record.
And it seems a little like convenient flim flam if you ask me.
Now we can keep our common ancestor and we don't even
have to ever find proof of one. Don't you see how one might
see it that way?

Who said we don't ever have to find proof of one? Being relatively sure of there being a common ancestor due to outside evidence doesn't mean we
don't want to search for physical proof of one. That's a silly assumption. Finding the true common ancestor would unlock many secrets about the
origin of life and will complete the evolution picture. Scientists have EVERY reason to search for it and are actually doing it. But even if we don't
solve those other questions, finding proof of what the common ancestor is would vindicate current models by giving the actual proof that these
predictions are correct. You really fail at how science works if you think for a second that just because people are sure of its existence, that means
we don't have to look for proof of it.

The better question is why so meticulous with the proof for evolution when the holes in your pet theory (god) are so vast that they aren't even worth
mentioning? You and your camp look for the smallest holes in scientific theories that you disagree with (like evolution) and then say "AHA! See it's
not true! You can't explain this!" Like that somehow invalidates the rest of the theory. Meanwhile, you have contradictions galore in your book that
make it impossible to know for sure what exactly they meant when they wrote those passages down into the bible. But somehow those glaring flaws are
ok. It's really sick and shows a HUGE cognitive dissonance.

The better question is why so meticulous with the proof for evolution when the holes in your pet theory (god) are so vast that they aren't even worth
mentioning? You and your camp look for the smallest holes in scientific theories that you disagree with (like evolution) and then say "AHA! See it's
not true! You can't explain this!" Like that somehow invalidates the rest of the theory. Meanwhile, you have contradictions galore in your book that
make it impossible to know for sure what exactly they meant when they wrote those passages down into the bible. But somehow those glaring flaws are
ok. It's really sick and shows a HUGE cognitive dissonance.

Come on Krazy, who's camp is the one always so adament about evidence?
No evidence, no sky man, can't have one!
Nevermind the fact that evidence has been known to lie and sent innocent
people to prison.

The better question is why so meticulous with the proof for evolution when the holes in your pet theory (god) are so vast that they aren't even worth
mentioning? You and your camp look for the smallest holes in scientific theories that you disagree with (like evolution) and then say "AHA! See it's
not true! You can't explain this!" Like that somehow invalidates the rest of the theory. Meanwhile, you have contradictions galore in your book that
make it impossible to know for sure what exactly they meant when they wrote those passages down into the bible. But somehow those glaring flaws are
ok. It's really sick and shows a HUGE cognitive dissonance.

Come on Krazy, who's camp is the one always so adament about evidence?
No evidence, no sky man, can't have one!
Nevermind the fact that evidence has been known to lie and sent innocent
people to prison.

I'm not sure that you understand the way that science actually works. Actual testable evidence is one thing. A man who lies on the stand in court is a
totally different thing.

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't most of the evidence that has falsely* convicted people been eyewitness testimony? And hasn't the evidence that
has supported their innocence (later) been DNA evidence? I generally agree with your sentiment of skepticism, but I think your comparison here is
faulty.

In my opinion you sound like you think you have or know of "evidence" that could sway the opinions of so called non-believers, but you don't feel
we are "worthy" of observing...because we "demand" the evidence...do you see why that reasoning is slightly screwed up?

The better question is why so meticulous with the proof for evolution when the holes in your pet theory (god) are so vast that they aren't even worth
mentioning? You and your camp look for the smallest holes in scientific theories that you disagree with (like evolution) and then say "AHA! See it's
not true! You can't explain this!" Like that somehow invalidates the rest of the theory. Meanwhile, you have contradictions galore in your book that
make it impossible to know for sure what exactly they meant when they wrote those passages down into the bible. But somehow those glaring flaws are
ok. It's really sick and shows a HUGE cognitive dissonance.

Come on Krazy, who's camp is the one always so adament about evidence?
No evidence, no sky man, can't have one!
Nevermind the fact that evidence has been known to lie and sent innocent
people to prison.

Courtroom evidence and scientific evidence are two completely separate things with two different definitions of what qualifies as evidence. Was that
rebuttal meant to be clever or something?

So two people who have reading comprehension problems. If the universe has always existed, when exactly would this "Poof and the universe is here"
moment have occurred?

It always existed? So one day out of nowhere with nothing or nobody intervening, POOF the universe is made? Yes that is what you are
saying.

Always existing means that it always existed. It doesn't mean that suddenly, POOF the universe is made one day. Always existing means that it was
NEVER made or came into being it was always there. You just made the SAME reading comprehension error that I called you out for with the post you just
responded to.

Okay let me re-word the question. WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

How about this, at some point there was nothing...Something can't always exist, it has to come from somewhere. So again, where did it come from?
POOF nothing made it and it just came to be? Something can't just exist without first coming from somewhere or something.

In my opinion you sound like you think you have or know of "evidence" that could sway the opinions of so called non-believers, but you don't feel
we are "worthy" of observing...because we "demand" the evidence...do you see why that reasoning is slightly screwed up?

So two people who have reading comprehension problems. If the universe has always existed, when exactly would this "Poof and the universe is here"
moment have occurred?

It always existed? So one day out of nowhere with nothing or nobody intervening, POOF the universe is made? Yes that is what you are
saying.

Always existing means that it always existed. It doesn't mean that suddenly, POOF the universe is made one day. Always existing means that it was
NEVER made or came into being it was always there. You just made the SAME reading comprehension error that I called you out for with the post you just
responded to.

Okay let me re-word the question. WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

How about this, at some point there was nothing...Something can't always exist, it has to come from somewhere. So again, where did it come from?
POOF nothing made it and it just came to be? Something can't just exist without first coming from somewhere or something.

How do you know? Right now the Big Bang can only explain the first few milliseconds of the universe's existence. We know there was a singularity
beforehand, we don't know how long it existed, if it was created or if it always existed, heck we literally know next to nothing about it. You are
making some pretty definitive statements there about things that humans have no clue about. One possibility to the universe is that it always existed,
but existed in different forms. Another possibility is that it was created at some point. Another possibility is that it was the result of a random
event. We don't know.

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't most of the evidence that has falsely* convicted people been eyewitness testimony? And hasn't the evidence that
has supported their innocence (later) been DNA evidence? I generally agree with your sentiment of skepticism, but I think your comparison here is
faulty.

Courtroom evidence and scientific evidence are two completely separate things with two different definitions of what qualifies as evidence. Was that
rebuttal meant to be clever or something?

Yes, in fact that's my only intent, ever.

Well it certainly was the opposite of clever. Most people who deal in evidence of any sort know that there is a difference between courtroom evidence
and scientific evidence. This is how people get wrongfully accused of crimes they didn't commit, because the evidence that is allowed in a courtroom
is vastly different than the type that science accepts. A scientist doesn't accept testimonials as viable evidence for something (ex: the bible). A
courtroom does accept testimonials as evidence. Maybe if you cared about semantics a bit more with your wordings, you wouldn't blunder your way into
gaffs such as these.

A scientist doesn't accept testimonials as viable evidence for something (ex: the bible). A courtroom does accept testimonials as evidence. Maybe if
you cared about semantics a bit more with your wordings, you wouldn't blunder your way into gaffs such as these.

How about it? DNA evidence usually results in overturning bad convictions. It's a good thing that courts accept it now in a court of law. Are you
trying to suggest that legal evidence and scientific evidence cannot coincide or something? Because that is silly, just because the definitions are
different doesn't mean they cannot have similar ideas of what they do and don't consider evidence for certain types of evidence.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.